The Theory of Evolution.

[LuftWaffle]

OldEnglishSheepdog,

remember what I said to you a while back in that email? ( dated March 21)

Was I spot on or what? Check it out:

I am afraid you are not strong enough to accept to be intellectually challenged by a woman.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Well, he is the guy that did not address the question. So maybe he is the troll.

He has stated he has addressed the question in previous threads and that you dodged it.

And why do you not address everything else I said.

If you only look at one side of the argument, and refuse to even try to look at everything I have given you, then you are not here to seek or to re-establish your faith, you are only here to preach against our faith. You seem to be doing this under the guise of a former person of faith but from what you said you really truly never held the faith that you preach against.

So why do you not read any books that would proof there is a God. What are you afraid of, if you are not here to preach against us, then why are you so dead set against proving us wrong about HIM?

[Isaiah 6:8]

I might be slow, but I cannot think of anything in our daily observations that begins to exist. Could you provide an example?

Are you claiming that you had no beginning? Your consience or your essence always existed?

Of course not. But no new matter/energy started to exist during the process. The building materials of my existence

where already available.

Then why did you attempt to argue with me in another thread that they did not always exist.

Then you are making a faith based statement. Showing you have faith but just not in God.

And why do you never reply to what I have asked you?

[nebula]

I might be slow, but I cannot think of anything in our daily observations that begins to exist. Could you provide an example?

Are you claiming that you had no beginning? Your consience or your essence always existed?

Of course not. But no new matter/energy started to exist during the process. The building materials of my existence

where already available.

Not the materials to your body - but your essence, your conscious thought, your creativity, your personality - that stuff.

[nebula]

Notice how her argument has now shifted back to genetic fallacies and chronological snobbery against the argument instead of actually dealing with the argument itself, I think she tried that same one about a month ago.

"The Cosmological Argument is too old and was invented by a Muslim, so therefore the argument must be wrong"

...And after I told her twice that the pre big bang state is ontologically(or causally) prior to the universe and not temporally prior she ignores it and carries on acting as if the time issue is an insurmountable obstacle.

She's also tried this idea before that the Cosmological argument doesn't prove the God of Christianity as if that saves atheism from the argument. It's a case of, "Sure the argument shows there is a God, but since we don't know which God, we can still believe there is no God. Woohoo!". How absurd and how sad, rehashing previously failed arguments hoping they'll stick this time. What do they say about people to do the same thing over expecting different results?

Viole, I would like to hear your response to this challenge.

You call that a challenge? But I will if you insist.

Please do!

[LuftWaffle]

Is that all that you've got?

Sorry, but this is a typical case of male's arrogance.

Looks like you are not able to answer the question either: what example can you provide concerning something that begins to exists?

Your strategy is pretty clear: the only way you can win this is by getting me banned as a troll :-(

I am afraid you are not strong enough to accept to be intellectually challenged by a woman.

In the above post you're asking ME if that's all I got, refering to my supposed 'male arrogance'. It seems then that you're attributing my statement to me, as the originator. Surely then if you yourself attribute my statement to me then it serves as an example of something which began to exist, of which I'm the originator.

Otherwise you'd simple have said, "the chemicals in your brain have determined you to have 'male arrogance' and the chemicals in my brain do not like that". But then one has to ask how chemicals can be chauvenistic in the first place, and why such chemicals would be wrong. Either way, if your statement is true that nothing begins to exist and that all things are determined by natural laws then you should blame the cosmos for chauvenism, racism, injustice etc. and not accuse me.

This is how absurd your argument is: You hold people responsible for what they say and do, while at the same time claiming a deterministic worldview where, what people say and do are purely manifestations of material processes, that have supposedly always existed and run their course in a blind mechanistic way.

This is precisely this double standard that prompted G.K. Chesterton to write the following:

The modern rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be a true revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. So he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He cusses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he cries out that war is a waste of life, then, as a philosopher, that all life itself is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics, he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics, he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything, he has lost his right to rebel against anything.

But where the Cosmological argument is concerned, I don't believe we even need to play by the rules you're setting here. Premise 1 of the argument refers to things beginning to exist ontologically, not necessarily in a matter/energy sense. Ontologically a pencil originates in a pencil factory, that's where it's existence began, before that it was a tree, which ontologically isn't a pencil. So the limitation you're placing on the argument is unreasonable.

None of this proves however that the premise is false. Even granting your bizarrely unscientific and unproven assertion that everything has always existed, it doesn't prove that if something did begin to exist, that it wouldn't have a cause. So as far as I'm concerned your entire approach is a rabbit trail.

Edited April 6, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[nebula]

If somebody proves that the creation is a conscious act, I could use the same line of reasoning and say, based

on our empirical data:

- Every conscious being has a physical body

- The universe creation is a conscious act

- The creator of the universe has a physical body

And so on...

"God is light"

Light is energy.

All matter comes from energy.

Not a problem!

Likewise, the Scriptures declare that the Lord created through the spoken word. Whatever a spoken word is made of would then be the basis for what is created.

Edited April 6, 2011 by nebula

[Isaiah 6:8]

So when are you going to respond to me Viole?

You seem to ignore my statements.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Nope, Even M-Theory would prove there exists matter/energy in another universe. Where did that come from, another multi-verse? and where did that come from? and where did that come from?...

You see the fallacy of your logic you are stating that something other then God MUST have always existed, though you cannot prove it. You are so against GOD that you will belive anything but, even with out evidence. So as I mentioned in another post.

You do not like our faith so you are trying to preach your faith, while pretending that it is science.

Actually, your first question is a good one. My understanding is that there are a number of math models that show that there is an infinite number of universes. If that is the case, then there is no need to posit a first universe. As I noted there are some possible tests for these models, and in the future we may be able to rule some (all?) of them out.

On the other hand, it is not a logical fallacy not to accept the premise of God. While you may wish to accept that premise, it's not a requirement for constructing a logically consistent model of the Universe (capital U used to denote all possible universes).

I'm not against God. I'm not sure why you would think that. You seem to make a lot of assumptions about my thinking that are invalid.

Not really assumptions, you just seem to be promoting all that is against God, and attempting to prove that it is possible that everything existed with out him. You only state that he is a possibly when confronted with the facts that everything you state is coming from a system that is based on belief, not fact.

so you can see why it would seem your anti-God.

[Isaiah 6:8]

OH no Isaiah. Sorry. But I have problems responding to everyone. I am popular, apparently

What was your question? You get priority, promised.

]Also why is it that you have never tried to read a book I gave you? I gave you a link to it, and told you you could listen to it in audio form online for free on youtube. but yet, you refuse to even look at a book that may possibly prove God. Only books that are out to attack God and disprove him.

If you refuse to look at both sides of the argument, and simply bash the other persons side with out really trying to understand, then you are very much a troll.

I am confused why you do not really try to see if God exists but only attack the belief that he does.